Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his confidence that I will be at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time. He makes a plea for integrated education and there is clearly a great unmet demand on the part of parents for such education. The Government have obligations in that regard and dealing with this issue is a challenge, but we must also meet the challenge of falling school rolls. There are 50,000 spare places and one in eight school desks are empty. The review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated will consider how we can be smarter in managing the school estate and how we can ensure that we meet parental demand for integrated education, along with every other form of education.

David Hanson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken a number of engagements—I think 46 so far—in various areas across Northern Ireland, and that I have looked at these problems. It is right that paramilitary influence is one of the major stumbling blocks to making progress in many of the areas of economic deprivation, and I have met 12 or 13 Members of the Assembly from the right hon. Gentleman's own party to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend said, we need to tackle social and economic deprivation, and at the same time take the gun out of Northern Ireland politics. That applies both to the IRA and to the loyalist paramilitary organisations and it an essential prerequisite to progress. The continuation of threats, intimidation and armed activity is one of the blocks to tackling social and economic deprivation in many parts of Northern Ireland.

Alasdair McDonnell: In taking measures to tackle recent unemployment, could we begin to develop a strategy to tackle long-term unemployment? Does the Minister agree that the best opportunities for economic growth lie in high wage, high value added technology? We need a greater focus on the newer technologies, especially biotechnology, where we might not be as focused as we could be.

Angela Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is where the focus is needed, and that is where the focus is. There is considerable investment in biotechnology to show that Northern Ireland can be a world leader in that area. The skills and science fund is the key to ensuring that we get those high value, technological jobs that will attract investors and create more sustainable long-term jobs in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: Knowing the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as well as I have been able to do over past months, I can tell the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that nobody tries to bludgeon the right hon. Gentleman—or at least they do so at their peril, so I am certainly not going down that road.
	Things cannot continue as they are: 2006 is a make-or-break year. The clock is ticking. The Assembly is costing £9 million a year, with Assembly Members not doing their jobs and receiving salaries and expenses averaging £85,000 a year. That situation cannot continue for ever and everybody realises that there must be some energy and momentum in the political process, which we intend to achieve.

Tony Blair: No; I agree, of course, entirely. It is extremely important that the police use the powers available to them. One of the reasons for the legislation that is currently before the Houses of Parliament is precisely to strengthen the law. It is important that we can agree on the measures that are necessary to do that because the law will be strengthened in very important ways. First, indirect encouragement to acts of terrorism will be made unlawful and glorification will be mentioned specifically as an example of indirect incitement to terrorism. Secondly, it was extremely important—I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look again at the Conservative party's position on this—that the original provisions in the Bill allowed us to proscribe groups that glorified terrorism. Those provisions were removed from the legislation in the House of Lords. It is important that we send out a very strong signal that any group, or people, who glorify terrorism in any way at all will be committing a criminal offence and that those groups that rely on glorifying terrorism to attract recruits should not be able to operate in our society.

Tony Blair: No, of course they will not. However, in any situation, especially when other troops are under threat, as happened recently, I am sure that our troops would want to go to the help of their allies. The important thing is surely that we, together with the troops of many other countries, are in Afghanistan to help that country towards the democracy that its people want and to ensure that the Taliban or al-Qaeda cannot again use the country as a failed state for their own purposes. We can be not only immensely proud of the work that our troops do there, but immensely determined to ensure that they can carry on doing that work. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention that they should having a roving commission throughout Afghanistan, but if, as happened the other day, troops of another country working alongside us are under threat, of course our troops will want to go and help them.

Tony Blair: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman says that. A couple of weeks ago he asked me whether I would undertake categorically to ensure that schools had the freedom to own their buildings, employ their own staff and develop their own culture. They will have those powers and they will be in the education Bill. I thought that he now agreed with me that we do not want to return to selection.

Tony Blair: If my hon. Friend went and looked at the city academies he would see that many schools that used to be hugely under-subscribed are now over-subscribed. He would see the children receiving a first-class education and the possibility and potential that they have as a result, so I hope that perhaps he would take a different view of city academies and their sponsors.

Tony Blair: I plainly do not know the reasons for that, so I will get in touch with the hon. Lady to give them to her. Obviously, however, the rating is made across the whole range of services, but I cannot comment on the individual case.

Tim Farron: Is the Prime Minister aware that the primary care trust proposes to close the mental health wards at Westmorland general hospital in Kendal in my constituency? Given that his Government have indeed put additional funding into the national health service, will he explain to my constituents why they are facing cuts in mental services in our area, and will he act swiftly to prevent those cuts taking place?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for not speaking until 7 o'clock. Perhaps he can enlighten me on the following point. It is something of a mystery to me why the debate is to be curtailed at six o'clock. Does he think that the Leader of the House could have been somewhat clearer in giving the reason for doing so?

Peter Robinson: It is one of the rare occasions when they will all be facing in the same direction, and hopefully all smiling at the same time.
	The reality is that the Government do not want a long debate on these motions because they have struck a deal with Sinn Fein. I have in front of me a copy of the parliamentary Labour party briefing on these motions, which is very poor in terms not only of quantity but quality. I also have a copy of the Conservative party briefing, which is more substantial in both senses. The PLP briefing makes it clear that these motions arise from a deal that the Government have done with Sinn Fein-IRA. They did another deal with Sinn Fein-IRA on the on-the-runs legislation, and we all saw what happened to that. So it is not in the Government's interest to have a long period of embarrassment in the House.
	The other factor is that, uncharacteristically and unintentionally, the Leader of the House might have misled hon. Members when he said, in the very brief remarks with which he opened the debate, that the motion was designed to facilitate the House when in fact it is to facilitate himself and his party colleagues. In addition, he said that the debate was to be truncated because we had gone over these matters before.
	That is not correct. One of the motions has been debated before in this House, but the other has never been debated here. The unique proposal is that a new fund should be set up that will be available exclusively to Sinn Fein-IRA. Other parties in the House will not enjoy the same freedom, when it comes to the expenditure involved, that Sinn Fein-IRA will have. That is a completely new subject for debate, and a major issue that we need time to discuss.
	I hope that the House recognises that a major constitutional issue is involved that we have never discussed before. We should be given the time to debate it properly.

Geoff Hoon: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question. The police investigations continue and it is important that the police can pursue their investigations without the type of political observation that I might be tempted to make. On the hon. Gentleman's second question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently met the McCartney family. He is in a better position than me to deal with those issues, and I am sure that he will give way to the hon. Gentleman later in the debate if further detail is required.

Geoff Hoon: I spent many years reading and dealing with intelligence and I learned never to comment on such matters, so I shall not break the habits of a previous career today.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the IMC report in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke). Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, certainly when the IMC recommended the suspension of allowances, it was referring specifically and only to allowances relating to the Stormont Assembly, not to the Westminster Parliament? Therefore, the implication in recommending that those allowances be reinstated is that it is also referring only to allowances in Stormont, not here in Westminister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be incorrect to seek to draw the Speaker into a debate. This matter is before the House for all hon. Members to make a decision. As I believe Mr. Speaker ruled during an early intervention, that is the position, and it remains so.

Geoff Hoon: I have had the opportunity to meet a number of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland, many of whom, inevitably, were associated with Her Majesty's armed forces, during the time that I was Secretary of State for Defence. In no way do I minimise the loss, the suffering and the tragedies that are caused to families in Northern Ireland, and I do not challenge the hon. Lady's interpretation of those events. All I can say is that in my time visiting Northern Ireland, I have heard from all sides of the community an overwhelming desire to see an end to the violence and to see a peaceful path for the people of Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is necessary for us to take appropriate steps in the hope of securing that.
	I simply ask all hon. Members to consider this. If we do not take this step, and the peace process stalls and fails and violence returns, what will have been achieved? What is the danger and risk about the process that we are embarked upon that causes so much difficulty for right hon. and hon. Members?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend addresses an issue that is central to the debate. The IRA has made a historic statement. Although right hon. and hon. Members might not accept it, it is a significant statement in the long and drawn-out tragedy for Northern Ireland and its people. There are now independent voices that have confirmed the statement and said it is verifiable that the IRA has abandoned terrorist activity. When those two facts are taken together, they provide hon. Members with a powerful argument that we should ignore at our peril.

Mark Durkan: Is the Leader of the House aware that several comments have been made in the past about various Sinn Fein returns to the Electoral Commission? Those excellent works of fiction have gone completely unchallenged despite the known facts about Sinn Fein's election expenditure, so it is hard to take seriously his assurances about scrutiny. Does the Leader of the House realise that he is talking in riddles by saying that the money is not Short money and then that it is—that it is the same and is not the same? Is it not the case that I will be unable to spend Short money on activities in my constituency, but that Sinn Fein will be able to spend its representation money on activities in my constituency against me?

Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your advice is needed as we just learned from the Leader of the House that if we pass the motion we will change the nature of Short money, because we have been told that it can now be spent in a way that representative money can be spent. Surely the Government should introduce a substantive motion on changing Short money that incorporates allowing Sinn Fein to claim that money, rather than changing its nature by extending it to Sinn Fein.

Geoff Hoon: At the risk of straying beyond the terms of the motion, I want to make it clear that the House has approved the payment of what is strictly known as Opposition parties financial assistance, colloquially known as Short money. That is subject to a set of rules that the House has agreed. The rules are applied, subject to appropriate accounting supervision by the House authorities. The House now has an opportunity of debating and agreeing, if it so wishes, a motion relating to providing financial assistance for Sinn Fein and for those parties that have not chosen to take their seats. I accept that in the present context that applies to Sinn Fein. The rules would then be applied in exactly the same way as the rules for Short money, not going beyond the terms of the Short money requirement, but making it clear that this is in relation to the representative business of the party.
	The rules are clear and they are available for the House to consider. They are available for individual Members to comment on and decide upon when they come to vote. It seems that the matter is clear and is available for all Members to consider.
	I am at risk of extending what were quite short remarks rather further than I believe they should go. We have set out clearly the issues for the House to decide. There are opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to make their points in the course of debate. I believe that in those circumstances it is appropriate for me to draw my remarks to a close.

Theresa May: In the light of the remarks of the Leader of the House in proposing the motions, I shall start by making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition are committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We all want to see a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and we share the Government's aims and objectives—their views on these matters are shared across the House—in seeking the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland and the resumption of the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Moreover, in recent weeks we have demonstrated that we are willing to work with the Government on issues that are to the benefit of our country.
	I listened with great care to the Leader of the House and to his responses to the many interventions. I was concerned at the manner in which he appeared to threaten Members in relation to the decision that they take today. I felt that his contribution to the debate was, frankly, not worthy of him.
	The issue before us is not about the Northern Ireland peace process or about the resumption of the Assembly; it is about the role of Members of Parliament, what it means to sit in the House and the nature of the job of being an elected representative of this place. It is primarily on that basis that we oppose the action that the Government are seeking to take and will be voting against the motions.
	A number of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), made the point during the debate on the business motion that these are matters of extreme importance to the House. I believe that the points can be made simply and succinctly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) indicated during the same debate.
	Given the comments that the Leader of the House has made about the relationship between this issue and the Northern Ireland peace process, I believe that it is questionable whether the conditions that led to the decision taken by the House to suspend existing allowances—namely, the involvement of Sinn Fein-IRA in criminal activities—are no longer relevant. Indeed, the latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission makes it clear that the republican movement remains involved in criminal activity and intelligence gathering, and raises real concerns about the way in which that movement is exercising community restorative justice. I shall quote one part of the report, on pages 34 to 35. The report states:
	"We have no doubt that the PIRA, uniquely among paramilitary organisations, has taken the strategic decision to eschew terrorism and pursue a political path. There are a number of signs that the organisation is moving in the way it indicated in its statement of 28 July 2005. But in the light of some of the activities we refer to a real question remains of whether this will involve purely conventional politics conducted within a culture of lawfulness."
	I suggest that the Government's own conditions for reinstatement of the individual allowances have not been met. I refer the Leader of the House to his response in business questions to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on, I believe, 26 January, when he made it clear that it was his view that any political party that was still engaged in criminal activity should not receive allowances. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that response carefully. Frankly, it does not bear comparison with his speech this afternoon.
	I believe that the issue before us is essentially about the nature of being a Member of Parliament. There are two proposals before us from the Government. One of the proposals is that the arrangements to give financial support to Members who have chosen not to take their seats—the financial arrangements which were suspended as from 1 April 2005—should now be reinstated, and more than that, should be backdated to 1 November 2005. The other motion goes far beyond that and beyond anything that has been proposed previously. It is extending financial support for those who choose not to take their seats beyond support for individual Members to support for a party that is represented by those Members.
	I believe that there are very strong parliamentary reasons for resisting these proposals. Before I set out those arguments, I shall refer to the timing of the debate. Coming as it does less than two days after talks between the British and Irish Governments and Northern Ireland political parties with a view to resuming the work of the Assembly, it clearly implies to the House, a link between that matter and the motions. The Leader of the House was quite open about it.
	The reason for bringing the motions before us today is not whether Members who do not take their seats should be entitled to allowances in relation to parliamentary business and the way that they stand alongside other Members of this place, but is simply about the role that the Government believe the motion can play in relation to encouraging further progress on the Northern Ireland peace process.
	Even if the motions were to have that effect, it is wrong for the House to take a view on the role of Members of this place, and the use of taxpayers' money to support them in that role, purely for reasons of political expediency. Members should remember that while the debate so far has been framed in relation to Sinn Fein—it is, of course, only Sinn Fein Members who today do not take their seats in the House—the motions before us are framed on the principle of giving allowances to any Members of any political party who choose not to take their seats. We are debating a point of principle, not merely an issue relating to one particular political party.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations which, I am sure, will help Members when they choose how to vote. It is important to look at the background to the issue to understand where we are today. Many hon. Members will remember, as has been said, that the previous Speaker, the right hon. and noble Baroness Boothroyd, ruled initially that no MP should receive allowances without taking up their seat in Parliament. Her ruling was based on a clear principle that there should be no associate Members of Parliament. Indeed, after a meeting with the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) in 1997, she said:
	"I told them that they were in effect asking for associate membership of this House. Such a status does not exist."—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 487.]
	The ruling made by the previous Speaker was subsequently overturned by Government motion in the House. The Leader of the House suggested that the motions are not about a point of principle but simply about the timing of the reinstatement of allowances and the extension of funding. I believe that it is still a point of principle that we should be debating in the House.
	It is a point of principle for my party that republican Members should not be treated any better, or any differently from any other Member of Parliament. We reject Government attempts to produce a pick-and-mix Parliament with à la carte allowances for Members who refuse to take their seats in Westminster. We all know that the job of being a Member of Parliament has many facets, including dealing with constituency cases, providing advice and assistance to constituents, and taking up issues on their behalf with the Government and other agencies. Some of that work can be done without Members' attendance in the Chamber and participation in debates. However, Members who do not come to the House will not fulfil that role properly because a key way in which constituency cases can be raised with other Members is through written and oral parliamentary questions, points of order and participation in debates. The job of being an MP goes further, and includes contributing to debates in the House on issues of the day and debating, scrutinising and commenting on legislation. That includes the ability to try to amend legislation, not to mention the job of holding the Government to account for the impact of their policies on the country as a whole and on individual constituencies.

Kate Hoey: May I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reflect on what he has said? He may recall that a substantial number of Labour Members opposed the measure initially because of its parliamentary nature, and many Labour Members abstained from voting. Labour Members opposed on-the-runs legislation, as did the two Northern Ireland parties on opposing sides, and it was not long before he had to give way on the issue. Does the right hon. Lady agree that when parties in Northern Ireland agree on something, particularly the issue of Short money, the Leader of the House should listen?

Theresa May: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, who has made a valid point that this is not a party political issue in the House. There are grave concerns among Members on both sides of the House about the Government's stance.

Theresa May: Just as I am arguing that it is a matter for the House as to what happens on the allowances so, in due course, it is a matter for the House as to what happens to them—

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illuminating the House further on yet another discrepancy in the position being taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—not only different positions as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales, but different positions at different times as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	There are those who might say that the issue before us is simply a matter of the oath that Members must swear in order to take their seats, but it is not. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) reminded us, the hon. Member for Belfast, West is quoted as saying:
	"There will never ever be Sinn Fein MPs sitting in the British Houses of Parliament."
	If they have no intention of carrying out the responsibilities of being a Member of Parliament, why should they receive taxpayers' money?
	It was a badly misjudged decision by the Government to award the allowances in the first place, and it remains misjudged to attempt to reinstate them. However, the motions before the House go further than the previous position. As was debated through interventions in the speech of the Leader of the House, Ministers are not simply seeking to reinstate the position that they introduced and were subsequently forced to suspend. They are seeking to go further and create a new allowance for political parties whose Members do not take their seats in the House.
	I listened carefully to the Leader of the House and, depending which answers one accepted from him, that money appeared to be on the one hand Short money and on the other hand not Short money. That position is even more indefensible for the Government. Short money is not available to Members who have not sworn the oath because it is designed to offer assistance with parliamentary duties, specifically to assist an Opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business. Why should a party that does not attend the House, does not vote, does not debate in the Chamber—in other words, that does not engage in or undertake parliamentary duties or parliamentary business—receive additional money to support its parliamentary activities? Surely that, more than anything else, confirms that this is not just a matter of parliamentary business.
	The Leader of the House made a number of references to the money, saying variously that it was Short money and that it was not Short money. I note that in his remarks he did not respond to my direct question about the definition of "representative business". As the House of Commons Library has made clear, the term has not been used previously in parliamentary procedure. The motion would bring about more than the extension of Short money. It would create a new parliamentary allowance.
	The Leader of the House should have recognised from the tone of the debate that if the Government's intention is to extend Short money to parties whose Members do not take their seats in the House, they should withdraw the motion and introduce a separate motion which makes that clear. The wording before us is not about Short money. It is about money that is available for representative business. It is a new allowance. I do not believe that parties whose Members are not participating fully in the House in all their duties as individual elected representatives and also as a party in opposition to the Government deserve to receive funding related to parliamentary activities or, more widely, a new allowance.

George Howarth: If my hon. Friend will let me finish my point, I may do so.
	It would be helpful if guidance, a letter of principle or something similar could be issued making it absolutely clear what restrictions are applied to these funds. I am not be comfortable that they will used be for the purposes that are intended, even though my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not make it entirely clear what those purposes are. I hope to be given some assurances on that.
	Subject to that, I intend to support the Government, but I make this one final point before doing so. I have a great deal of sympathy with constitutional and democratic parties in Northern Ireland, which are fed up to the back teeth with Sinn Fein promising to change and then finding that the evidence subsequently shows that it has not done so. Sinn Fein must realise that the time is rapidly approaching when it needs to fulfil all its obligations if we are to continue to give it the support that we have given it in the past. So far, it has not done so. Before we go any further with this process, I urge it to make it absolutely clear that it has made that change and that it is permanent.

Ian Paisley: Many of the matters before us have already been covered by the various hon. Members who have spoken today, and I shall not make a long speech, because many others want to make a contribution to the debate. It is only right that they should have the opportunity to do so.
	The people of Northern Ireland deeply resent any suggestion that those who are motivated to keep this motion from going through are motivated by hatred of the people involved and by a refusal to face facts. All of us have had to face facts, but the suggestion has been made by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House that if we do not pass the motion and there is retaliation, we should be responsible for what happens. We should not. Every Member of the House has the right to state their view. If people want to impute principles to their opponents, they can do so, but the fact is that the people of Northern Ireland do want peace. The greatest sacrifices for peace have been made by the population whom my colleagues and I represent in this House.
	Who gave their sons to be murdered by the terrorists? Who supplied the police officers and the police force? Who supplied the Army volunteers? The vast majority came from the Protestant and Unionist community. I know that some very famous families came from the Roman Catholic community, and that they too suffered. The IRA refused to allow the body of a constituent of mine whom they had blown up to be buried in his own church graveyard. His body had to be carried to a graveyard six miles away, because the IRA said, "If you bury him in his own graveyard, we'll dig him up. We will not allow him to be buried there." These are things that people have suffered.
	Let the House get this point in its mind today. There is the inkling—the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House seemed to suggest as much—that if we do not take this step, there will be a dread result. However, the dread result of taking this step will be this: there will be another concession, and the same argument will be used. After that a further concession will be made and the same argument will be used again, until the cause is surrendered and the people of Northern Ireland have lost their way completely—not through their own fault, but because they were misled. The Secretary of State needs to think very carefully about what he is doing.
	The suggestion that those who oppose such moves are hindering peace is the suggestion of someone who is not facing facts. We do not oppose peace. Every one of my Members has been attacked. Every one of them has been subjected to an attempted killing, and some of them have been beaten up. My own wife, who was a member of Belfast council, was beaten up and stoned in the street. I know what they have been through. We in this House need to ask ourselves, "What about the people who are the real carriers of the peace banner? What do they think about this?" I certainly know from my constituency experience what the victims feel. They feel that this is a bribe to IRA—pay money, blood money.
	In this regard, I think in particular of what happened to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). I confronted one of the leaders of the IRA in the Assembly when he was speaking about the support of children—about how we should all love our children—and I said, "What did you do when you were the IRA commander in Londonderry? You sent your gunmen to my friend's home on a Sunday night, after he had finished his service, and when his five children were in bed you ordered that the bullets be put through the bedroom." Forty-six bullets were put through that bedroom in my hon. Friend's homeS, and it is a miracle that no one was killed.
	We need to face up to those who think that way. There should be no bribes and no giving in. All of us who want to take part in these talks are told that we have to be democrats. All the parties have said that they will keep to that—except one, which says, "No. We are going to hold on to our weapons. We are going to continue our campaign."

Ian Paisley: Yes, my conviction is that certain things were done at a certain time, which my party had no connection with at all. In fact, I never had the opportunity even to speak to the Prime Minister, because I was banned from Downing street for almost two years; I do not have the Prime Minister's ear. I draw the conclusion that other things will emerge from the cupboard. Heaven knows what they will be, but this is one of them. Tonight, this House has a duty—

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not think that my hon. Friend and I disagree about that matter. However, the rules that will apply if motion 3 is passed have been announced, but they relate only to Sinn Fein. The Conservative party, the Liberal party, the SDLP, the DUP and the SNP must adhere to different, much narrower criteria.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) pressed the Leader of the House—if I could have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment—to define the parameters of Short money, because he criticised the Conservatives' stewardship of it. The Conservatives said that it was inappropriate and quite wrong to accuse them of abusing Short money. My hon. Friend has asked the Leader of the House to clarify the parameters, and they have been clearly defined and relate to exclusively to parliamentary business. The provision did not extend to representative business. That shows the difference that is being made for Sinn Fein.
	We must understand the nature of Sinn Fein, which believes that its writ runs like a seamless robe throughout Ireland. Let us take the position of the Leader of the House, who said that Sinn Fein might have a spokesperson on a certain matter. It is not possible, either for Sinn Fein or an accounting officer, to distinguish whether that spokesperson is, for example, talking about transportation in Northern Ireland, or in Monaghan or Cavan or elsewhere. Such things cannot be allocated and put into watertight compartments. That is the nature of Sinn Fein. I am not laying that down; it is part of the party's own rules and ethos that it believes that there is no such thing as Northern Ireland and that its spokespeople are entitled to talk about all 32 counties.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is in danger of burying himself in the detail of his own argument. Surely, the issue is that if Short money is paid to a party it is used to prepare briefings and other information for meetings with Ministers and so on. Is he saying that the other parties that receive Short money do not use any of that information other than in the Chamber of the House of Commons or in its Committees? Do they not use it in meetings with Ministers and in respect of all the other issues? Why is he so obsessed with the detail?

Andrew MacKinlay: The detail is crucial. We have detailed ground rules and strict parameters are laid down. I did not lay them down. The ground rules were laid down after a challenge by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East, who criticised the Conservatives in particular by suggesting that they were using the money for the purposes referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In the past, on the margins, I have been critical of our colleagues from the SDLP. However, we do not often acknowledge the way in which the Social Democratic and Labour parliamentary party plays a full and proud part in the work of the House. I acknowledge that unreservedly, as well as the fact that SDLP Members have bravely borne the problems of many years, along with other elected representatives. They follow a tradition in the House of being not only proud nationalists, but good parliamentarians. If you glance up at the back of our Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will see a red crest. I salute it every day because it represents Willie Redmond, a proud nationalist Member of Parliament. He was the oldest officer killed on the western front and a Member of the House of Commons who attended the House of Commons. The hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) keep up that tradition today.
	A suggestion made by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House might have influenced my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), although I hope to get him to pause and reflect. My right hon. Friends said that the peace process must go on and that it has been a great success. Enormous advances have been made and I am proud of the changes that have come about in Northern Ireland. I have a selfish interest in Northern Ireland because my wife and I intend to retire there—a long time from now, I must add, and after many more elections. The place has transformed and we need to talk it up because, in many respects, it is one of the safest places in western Europe, as well as one of the most beautiful. It has a lot going for it and I am proud of what has been achieved. However, the suggestion that the peace process is predicated on the new allowance for Sinn Fein stretches credulity to the limit. One can just imagine the president of Sinn Fein lying awake in bed at night thinking, "If I can get money in lieu of Short money, the peace process will advance."

Patrick Cormack: I shall do my best to obey your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to live up to what I said when I expressed the view that the debate would benefit from short, succinct contributions.
	The first thing we have to recognise is that we are not debating the peace process. It is wrong and, indeed, unworthy of Ministers or anyone else to suggest that those who have misgivings about the two motions are opposed to peace and normality being brought to that lovely Province. That is what every honest and honourable Member of the House wishes to see. We are not debating that.
	I should like to say briefly in parenthesis that if we were debating the peace process, I would have to point out that things are not as rosy as they look. Chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's current inquiry into organised crime, I am aware, from the evidence received up to now, of the considerable involvement in organised crime by paramilitaries on both sides. The peace process has a long way to go. I wish the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland well. He knows that. I would do anything that I legitimately could to help him to bring proper honourable and true peace to Northern Ireland, but we are some way off that, and we are some way off the restoration of the Assembly, which I also wish to see.
	What we are talking about is how we treat those who are elected to this place and who choose not to come here. I met Mr. Conor Murphy and some of his Sinn Fein colleagues on my first familiarisation visit as Chairman of the Committee in September last year. I said, "You and your colleagues have five seats in the Westminster Parliament. You are entitled to a seat on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. You tell us you are embracing democracy and renouncing terrorism. You tell us that you wish to be treated on all fours with other politicians. Well, then, why don't you take your seats, argue your case, sit on the Committee, and behave like those hon. Members representing the SDLP and the two Unionist parties, and play a proper part in Westminster." There is not an hon. Member who would not welcome that. There would be vigorous debate and strong argument, but we would welcome the fact that they performed that constitutional duty. But no, they still wish to behave as the first woman elected to the House, Countess Markiewicz, and not to take their seats.
	That is the right of Sinn Fein's Members. If that is they way they want to behave, it is up to them.

Patrick Cormack: Of course. We have our system of democracy and I believe in it. Like all systems, it is imperfect and sometimes one has to accept the rough with the rough. The fact is that these Members decided not to take their seats. I deeply regret that. I believe that they would demonstrate proper democratic credentials if they did take their seats, but they do not. We are discussing whether they, having decided deliberately to absent themselves, should be given allowances such as we are able to have.
	Misguidedly—to me, it is a matter of principle—the House decided in its wisdom, or otherwise, to support the Government when these people were given allowances. I was completely in support of Madam Speaker Boothroyd's judgment. It seemed to me that there could not be associate and second-class Members. I do not believe that anything changed between her decision and the House coming to its decision, but there we are. Then we had the spectacle of the Secretary of State withdrawing the allowances because of the involvement in the Northern bank robbery. I thought that that was a wise decision, and obviously supported it. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes to us—not really on the strength of the IMC report—and says, "I want you not just to reinstate the allowances but to backdate them to November."
	If the right hon. Gentleman truly believes that he or his colleagues have made a commitment that obliges him to do that, he would cover himself with more honour if he came to the Dispatch Box and said, "I am formally moving the motions. There are no Whips on; it is totally free vote territory. It is up to the House of Commons to debate and to decide." That would be keeping faith with the promise that in my view was ill-advisedly but honourably given, and it would be behaving in an entirely sensible manner, and the House would decide.
	As it is, the Government are seeking to manipulate the use of House of Commons money by giving these people allowances. Then, piling Pelion upon Ossa, it is said, "That it is not enough. We will give you some other money as well."
	As we have debated, this is not Short money as we currently know and understand it. This is a separate pot of money. A couple of weeks ago, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said that it was Hain money. However, this afternoon, Members have said that it is Hoon money. Whether it is Hoon money or Hain money, I know that it is taxpayers' money. If the House is misguided enough to pass the motion, taxpayers' money will be given to a group of people who have amassed more ill-gotten gains than almost any political party in the history of western Europe.
	This seems to be both unnecessary and wrong. If Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuiness had walked into the city hall in Belfast and deposited £26 million and said, "Here, you can have it back. We have no further use for it. We have washed our hands of dreadful methods." I think that I would put up my hands and say, "Yes, all right, you can have a bit of Short money". However, I would still not want them to have the other money because they do not come to the Chamber.
	Does the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is a serious, honourable and sensible man, expect the House to believe that there is a need for that money? Of course, there is not. I implore him, even if he persists in pressing the other motion, to heed the good sense eloquently advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock and not to push the Short motion until the Government have redefined it and returned to the House to prove that they are not inadvertently arguing for preferential treatment for the only party that does not take its seats in the House. That is a matter of logic and common sense. I have got that off my chest in 11 minutes, with two interventions, and I hope that that will allow other colleagues to be called.

Mark Durkan: We need to remember that we are considering two motions. They are very different, and in debating them, there is cross-reference between them and things are confused and conflated. However, we need to remember that those motions are distinct.
	Motion 4 on the Order Paper is the more straightforward of the two, as it deals with the question of restoring allowances removed in a motion on sanctions introduced in the House last March. That motion was tabled after a report by the Independent Monitoring Commission, and it extended the sanctions recommended by the IMC following the withdrawal of Assembly allowances and the Northern bank robbery. The Social Democratic and Labour party has never agreed that the IMC should have a role, power or function in drawing up or recommending sanctions against particular parties. We agreed with the concept of a monitoring commission that would examine any issue of concern raised by any party or anyone else about paramilitary activities or about parties failing to honour their political commitments under the Good Friday agreement to work with the institutions in a proper way. We therefore agreed that a monitoring commission should have such a role.
	In 2003, we argued at Hillsborough that the two Governments should not include sanctions in the role of the monitoring commission. We suggested that it take a solution-based approach, not a sanction-based one in which parties would sue one another and cite one another's activities in an effort to achieve sanctions. In a solution-based approach, by contrast, all parties would have a collective responsibility to face up to problems, propose solutions and take shared responsibility for them. That position, however, was not accepted, so legislation was introduced in the House to establish the commission and give it the power of sanction. We did not support that legislation, because we believed that, yet again, the Governments were making a mistake in the management of the process.
	Whenever motions were introduced in the House to impose sanctions on Sinn Fein, SDLP Members abstained from voting. Similarly, we will abstain from the vote to lift those sanctions, not because we oppose the return of allowances to Sinn Fein so that its Members can work on behalf of their constituents but because that is consistent with our position that we are not in the business of sanctions. Our position has been misrepresented by Sinn Fein, who keep saying that we supported a power of sanction for the IMC. We did not do so, and that is why we will abstain from the vote on motion 4. I will not do anything to discourage hon. Members on both sides of the House from going into the Lobby to support that motion, because it aims to ensure that Sinn Fein Members can conduct their representative business on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the way in which hon. Members conduct their business, and said that the allowances that we are paid do not all relate to what we do in the Chamber but to the meetings, correspondence and activities in which we engage. That will be covered by motion 4 on an equal basis with all other hon. Members in the House. The hon. Gentleman made a good argument for motion 4, but in his intervention he was not making a relevant argument in respect of motion 3.
	As someone who believes in equality and in the quality of democratic representation, I have no issue with people who live in Sinn Fein-held constituencies knowing that their MPs have the same allowance as any other MP, which allows them to engage in day-to-day representative business. I do not want anyone to be denied representation. I will make my arguments against Sinn Fein's manifesto and their representative quality at elections, but once the electorate has decided, we should all have the allowance available to us for our representative business.
	Motion 3 is different. We knew from what the Secretary of State had said in response to a previous IMC report that a motion would be tabled to restore allowances at Westminster. We all knew that. What we did not know was that there was a bonus ball in the draw—that Sinn Fein Members would get the Short money too. That emerged only last week, yet from briefings to colleagues, it seems that it goes back to an earlier deal or understanding between the Government and Sinn Fein.
	For weeks the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been assuring us that the odyssey of side deals is over—that we are no longer on that pub crawl of preconditions, demands and side deals that get in the way of progress and debase the very name of the peace process. We are told that that is no longer happening, but lo and behold—what do we get? More of the same.
	On Short money, the Leader of the House gave us a farrago of confusion. He told us that this was new money. He used the phrase "new money"—new funds. He told us that it was not Short money. In reply to hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, he contradicted them and said it was not Short money. Then he said it was the same as Short money; it would be like Short money. Later he said no, it would not be like Short money.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who unfortunately is not with us, said that he wanted Ministers to reassure the House. So far Ministers have not done so. They have just made me even more concerned than I was. It is up to the House to reassure itself on these matters. If any of us have any doubts as a result of the confusion, we should vote against motion 3 and ask the House authorities or the Government to table something better.
	There is confusion, as matters stand, even about Short money. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that different parties had tested the line on it. When, as a new Member of the House and the leader of a party in the House, I inquired about the guidelines for Short money, I was told by Officers of the House that there is very little. They said that they would send me what there is, and not much came to me in the post. There is a genuine need for the House to re-examine funding for Opposition parties. That could take in representative work, as well as parliamentary work, so that all of us could look equally at the distinction between parliamentary work and representative work. Perhaps then all parties, on an equal basis, could have the benefit of an allowance that they could use for either or both purposes.
	I advocate that we sort the issue out, taking in the position of Sinn Fein as well as other parties. That is the right and proper way of doing things. It would give equal treatment to all parties.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady has made a separate point about sanctions. The misuse of funds voted for by this House is clearly a proper matter for this House to pursue, because if anyone misuses funds, appropriate measures must be taken.
	I have been discussing political difficulties in the peace process. When the Government introduced the IMC, they went for a sanctions-based approach. We had an issue with that approach, but it was not because we were afraid of imposing sanctions on Sinn Fein or of doing things separately from Sinn Feinour position on policing shows that we have no problem with doing things differently from Sinn Fein. Our honourable position on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which has been vindicated, also shows that we have no problem doing things differently from and standing up to Sinn Feinfor example, we pointed out the sleazy deals struck between Sinn Fein and the Government.
	We could not accept that sanctions were the long-term answer to the problems in the peace process. We did not like the Government's idea of a menu of sanctions, because, as Seamus Mallon said in this House on a previous occasion, when the sanctions were set against the scale of criminality and the potential profit from racketeering, we were discussing a small licence fee for criminality, which was not much of a windfall tax given all the robberies for which the IRA has been indicted. We never got into that territory, because we thought it wrong and misguided.
	On Short money, the Government are now seeking to get the House to give Sinn Fein a gratuitous bonus. We should consider how Short money can be used to extend some benefits to Sinn Fein on an equal basis to other political parties, and I ask hon. Members to vote against motion 3 on the Order Paper to allow that to happen.
	The Northern Ireland Bill will be published next week. Among other things, it will make provisions on donations and fundraising in respect of party political funding. Although the Government's proposal is out of turn, I want the Government to allow us to go through the Bill and examine the implications for all parties on funding. We should also examine the fairness of introducing a bespoke fund for Sinn Fein in that light. All hon. Members should be wary of bespoke, ad hoc funding for one party in any circumstances.
	Some hon. Members have said that the peace process rests on that issue, but they used the same verbal formula on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, when they suggested that the sky would fall in if the values, spirit and concerns of victims were upheld. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill has fallen by the wayside, but is the peace process in crisis? No; the political landscape is a lot better and the situation is more encouraging.
	A number of hon. Members have cited the IMC report and the Decommissioning Commission report, which are relevant to not only this debate, but, hopefully, political developments in the coming months. The IMC report is positive, and I wish that DUP Members would face up to the progress that it identifies on the IRA's desisting from a range of activities. Equally, Sinn Fein and the Government must face up to the ongoing problems that that report underlines. For their own purposes, both Sinn Fein and the DUP exaggerated their reactions to the IMC report, which gave people the impression that it is far more negative than it actually is.
	Hon. Members should have no particular concern about voting for motion 4 on the Order Paper, but they should think long and hard about motion 3 on the Order Paper, because we can better address Short money, Sinn Fein and equality of funding for Northern Ireland political parties.
	I am conscious that in any overall review of Short money we need to consider the invidious position that is created for the Ulster Unionist party, which, with the same number of Assembly Members as Sinn Fein and a vote share slightly larger than ours, finds itself without Short money, policy money, and so on. That puts it in a difficult position. It has to carry out all sorts of representative activities and duties without the benefit of the parliamentary allowances that Sinn Fein has.
	If we are to consider this on the basis of equity, fair play, justice and diversity, we need to take a position that is more than just a fix-up for Sinn Fein alone. Too much of this process has been based on the Government fixing things for Sinn Fein. The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) recalled sitting on the Government Benches for 26 hours defending the Disqualifications Bill, which was introduced for the purposes of Sinn Fein alone and to suit its particular party political designs. Time and again, in key negotiations Sinn Fein negotiates not for a variety of people, nor for the community at large in Northern Ireland, nor even for the nationalist and republican community in Northern Ireland, but for itself. That is why we get key demands centring on funding for Sinn Fein, offices for Sinn Fein, the on-the-runs legislation

Gregory Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given what he is saying every Northern Ireland Member attending this House should vote against motion 3 and that the Government should pay very close attention to that unanimous opposition?

Mark Durkan: He will, too, although whether in the same Lobby as me is another matter. He will be with me after the vote, if nothing else.
	We have had evidence of all the different fix-ups suiting Sinn Fein and its purposes. Even the Taoiseach indicated that the deal-breaker for Sinn Fein in one of the key deals did not concern the institutions, inclusion or equality, but securing the release of certain prisoners in a jail in the Irish Republicthose who had killed Garda McCabe. We see time and again that Sinn Fein negotiates for itself and for its own. At some point the Government should tell Sinn Fein where to get off. If this is being done in the name of a wider democratic peaceful processsomething that is going to give us all a greater good that we should participate init is on those terms and those alone that the party should come forward with its demands and preconditions. The Government are sending a very dangerous signal in continuing this approach.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North tries to defend this on the grounds that we have to do questionable things that people may not like in the name of confidence-building. The Democratic Unionist party came into talks on Monday with six demands, all couched in the name of confidence-building, saying that unless they were granted, the talks could not start. In terms of confidence-building, one has to throw a six to start before one gets anything. I would advise my hon. Friend to be very careful about where the confidence-building ticket may lead. What goes around comes around in this process, unfortunately.
	If the Government are telling us that new factors have created this need for new money, they should inform the House that we need to consider them in the context of a review of Short money; I am sure, on the basis of the debate so far, that the House would be able to do that. They should not give the House the bum's rush and say that we have to pay Short money for short arms as a form of Haingeld, as Members will no doubt end up calling it. This is a bad way for the House to conduct itself as regards the key issue of moneys that it votes to its own Members. The House should be more judicious about its own procedures, and is certainly entitled to ask the Government to be more circumspect in their dealings with Sinn Fein in the name of the peace process.

David Wilshire: I apologise to the House for not being present for the whole of the debate. I had a medical appointment that I did not want to break. I would not recommend anyone to have their blood pressure checked during one of these debates.
	For those Members who have not been in the House as long as others, there is always some sort of curiosity when an English MP weighs into a Northern Ireland debate. I have done so in the past

Jeremy Corbyn: Sinn Fein Members who have been elected to this House do not receive any payment because they do not take their seats. Until recently, they did not receive any allowances either. Agreement was then reached, following a debate in the House, that they should receive allowances in order to carry out their representative work in Parliament. Electors may vote for someone who has already announced that they will not take their seat in the House, but that does not mean that the Member is not going to represent those people. The Member has merely said that they will not take their seat. Historically, this goes back to 1918 when Connie Markievicz was electedironically, from my constituency; I think I am right in saying that she was in Holloway prison at the timeto represent Dublin, Central. She could not, and did not, take her seat. Nor did the other Sinn Fein MPs of the time. That was the tradition. Nevertheless, such MPs have a duty to represent peopleas does every other Memberwhich involves dealing with correspondence, agencies, the Government and all the rest of it.

Douglas Hogg: I shall be brief, as I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I find myself in agreement with some of what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said. I make a distinction between the motion dealing with Short moneyHoon moneyand that dealing with allowances. I will not support the formerindeed, I will oppose itfor the reason pointed out by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others. There is a distinction, as it is currently presented to the House, between the benefits paid to the traditional Opposition parties and to Sinn Fein. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said, but I am also conscious of the wording of the 1975 resolution.
	The truth is that Short money should be paid only in connection with parliamentary business. I am perfectly willing to accept that there is an overlap between parliamentary and representative business. However, we are emphasising the gapinevitably, I thinkby using different language. Where language is different, it normally attracts different interpretations. The risk of accepting the Short money-Hoon money motion is that there will be a real disadvantage to the traditional Opposition parties, and a real and unfair benefit to Sinn Fein.
	For reasons that I shall set out in a moment, I am perfectly prepared to contemplate Short money-Hoon money going to Sinn Fein, provided that the same money is payable to the traditional Opposition parties, including my own. Therefore my suggestion to the Governmentit is similar to the points made by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Foyleis that the motion should be withdrawn and replaced by one that covers the entirety of such allowances payable to all Opposition parties. In that way, we can be sure that there is no differentiation of language and no risk of a different interpretation.
	I shall say no more about Short money-Hoon money, as I realise that time is short. I turn now to the question of allowances for Sinn Fein, about which I shall say something a little more controversial. I regret that, as he knows full well, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) about this matter.
	I approach this debate as a monarchist, and that is important in the light of what I have to say about the Oath. I approach it also as a deeply committed Unionist, as I hope that members of the Unionist parties will accept. I am also a traditionalist and a Conservativebut above all, I am a parliamentarian.
	By what authority is any of us in this place? Our only legitimacy stems from the fact that we have been chosenperhaps imperfectlyby our electorates. That is as true of Sinn Fein Members as it is of any other hon. Member. The general proposition is that a person who is chosen as a Member of this House has obligations, but also the rights and benefits that flow from that choice. I say that it is a general proposition, because those entitlements fall away on disqualification, or perhaps suspension. Why are we seeking to deny Sinn Fein Members the benefits that attach to the rest of us?
	I acknowledge that they refuse to take the Oath, but I do not think that the Oath should be a precondition of sitting in the House. I am a monarchistthat is why I am making this pointand have no difficulty with taking the Oath, but I accept that republicanism is a perfectly proper political position. I suspect that many hon. Members, in the course of our history and perhaps today, have had to strain their consciences to take the Oath. I do not believe that we should ask people to do that.
	We should reformulate the Oath so that any honourable person can take it. It should not be attached to the monarchy, but should be expressed in some different way that we could discuss. Therefore I do not accept that a failure to take the Oath disqualifies Sinn Fein Members from receiving the allowances and the benefits.
	A different question has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and others. Given that Sinn Fein Members do not participate, are they entitled to the allowances? However, the hon. Member for Islington, North got the matter wholly right, and all of us know that our parliamentary duties go far beyond what we do in this place.
	I have not been in the House as long as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, but I came here in 1979. I know that some hon. Members are very assiduous in the House, and that some hardly play any part at all. Some prefer to concentrate on their national or constituency duties: some of the most assiduous in this place make contributions of the least value, while some who come only occasionally make contributions of the greatest value.
	We have to recognise that important contributions are made outside the House. I would be prepared to accept that Sinn Fein Members do that in their constituency functions. They probably do write to Ministers, raise cases with the Inland Revenue and do all the other such things that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do. That is a discharge of their duties, and they should be entitled to allowances for that reason.

Peter Robinson: It has been said:
	All human errors are impatience, the premature breaking off of what is methodical.
	The Government's approach to the political process, specifically their confidence in the democratisation of Sinn Fein, has been characterised over the years by premature actions and excessive expectations. No action illustrates that over-eagerness more clearly than their seeking to restore allowances to republicans only days after a devastating IMC report.
	I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): DUP Members do not ignore the fact that the IMC noted that in some small areas there had been recognised improvements in terms of the republican movement, although there is nothing in the report indicating that such improvements will be permanent. In many areas, however, the report indicates that there is no improvement and that the leadership is heavily involved.
	Last year, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
	In 1998, everyone thought that there would be a transitional period in which there would be a withering away . . . of criminality and all the other activities that paramilitaries get up to. However, the reality is that the robbery of the Northern bank and other activities show that it has not gone away.
	Announcing his intention to withdraw allowances from Sinn Fein, the right hon. Gentleman said that
	the measures that we are proposing are designed to express the disapproval of all those who are committed to purely democratic politics at the actions of the Provisional IRA.[Official Report, 22 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 17179.]
	That was a logical position, but, given the damning report of the IMC last week, the people of Northern Ireland will wonder if the Government no longer disapprove of IRA activitiesfor why else would republicans be rewarded by the House?
	At a time when the Provisional IRA is in the dog house, exposed on the international stage for its ongoing criminal activities, what message are the Government sending? Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is willing to issue threats to Assembly Members in Northern Ireland and those who staff their offices that he will remove their allowances. They are democratspeople to whom the IMC reports make no referenceserving their communities through a network of offices, yet they are expected to live with ongoing uncertainty about their employment.
	It is not as though the IMC report was lukewarm or vague about the Provisional IRA's involvement in criminality. Many observers were taken by surprise at the frankness of the report's description of the new phase of the IRA's activity. The report stated:
	Members of the Provisional IRA continue to be heavily involved in serious organised crime, including counterfeiting and the smuggling of fuel and tobacco . . . Senior members
	senior members, not somebody carrying out ad hoc activity for their own pocket
	are involved in money laundering and other crime . . . Not all PIRA's weapons and ammunition were handed over for decommissioning in September. The material goes beyond a limited number of handguns kept for personal protection.
	The Secretary of State might like to explain the following. The IICD report makes it clear that the commission had received evidence from UK intelligence sourcesMI5 and the PSNIthat the IRA had held on to weaponry. The IICD, having been caught out committing itself publicly to saying that all decommissioning had been completed, tried to find someone to support that belief. It went to the Provisional IRA. Of course, those in the Provisional IRA said, We have decommissioned all our weapons. It went to the Garda Siochana, who said that they had no such evidence in their jurisdiction, but that if the PSNI did it was clearly because it was in the United Kingdom jurisdiction.
	What did the IICD do? It had the choice to believe, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does, either MI5 and the PSNI or the IRA. The IICD chose to believe the Provisional IRA, and I am glad to say that the IMC did not. I was glad to hear Lord Alderdice, the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, very clearly indicate that he could not agree with the IICD's judgment.
	The IMC report says that the Provisional IRA
	continues to engage in intelligence gathering, and has no present intention of doing otherwise. This is an activity we believe is authorised by the leadership and which involves some very senior members.
	The report continues:
	It involves efforts to penetrate public and other institutions with the intention of illegally obtaining or handling sensitive information. The organisation continues to accumulate information about individuals and groups, including members of the security forces.
	Is it the Government's clear view that the allowances contained in the two motions should be returned to an organisation with a CV that has been outlined by the IMC report?
	The notion that ongoing IRA criminality is down to a handful of individuals, far removed from the republican leadership, has been dispelled. The illegality comes not from one or two on the fringes; it goes right to the very top of the republican movement. The information that I have quoted about intelligence gathering is probably the most directly relevant to the House.
	Hon. Members should not forget that a republican spy ring at Stormont brought down the old Assembly in Northern Ireland three and a half years ago. Furthermore, within the last week, Ministers in the Irish Republic, including the Minister for Defence, and elected representatives in the Dil were ordered by their parties to check out of and not return to a popular Dublin hotel on account of evidence of IRA surveillance activities at the hotel. While the IRA is brazenly continuing to gather intelligence targeted at public institutions, surely it would be ridiculous for the House to vote to restore allowances to those republicans, some of whom are the leaders who control those very activities.
	The Government's fascination with applying the allowances raises the question of whether anything could have appeared in the eighth IMC report about IRA activity that would have dissuaded the Government from following such a foolish course of action. Is it only when the IRA is found to have been behind a 26.5 million robbery that it is deemed appropriate that allowances should be withheld? Yet, under the motions, the Government are reducing the sanction that they set for that offence and setting no sanction for all the crimes that have been committed since.
	The proceeds of the Northern bank raidthe largest ever in the British isleshave still not been recovered. They are retained by the republican movement, and the IRA has done nothing to assist in the recovery of that cashin fact, it has done the opposite. Holding and using the proceeds of a bank robbery is a continuing crime.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the IMC can only recommend or comment on sanctions that are attached to the Assembly allowance? Although it likes the jurisdiction that it has, it does not run to allowances in the House at all.

David Lidington: I agree with the implication behind the hon. Lady's question. I will dwell on the issue at greater length in a short time.
	The irony is that Sinn Fein, of all parties, is not short of cash. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the amounts that we are debating today are small change in the context of the profits that have been made from a succession of robberies and other crimes over the years. The Government defend these motions on the ground that they will help to sustain the political process, but I fear that they will have the opposite effect. Suspicion about the Government's motives will breed along with deals that may have been done behind closed doors. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, there has been too much about the political process that has been about fixing things to suit Sinn Fein. It is time that we had less ambiguity and greater transparency if we are to have a chance of building trust and confidence, which presently is at a low level.
	The debate has focused largely on motion 3 concerning the new allowance. There was widespread concern in the House about the ambiguity over what the money is supposed to be used for. There would have been some logic to the Government's position had Ministers come forward with a motion to say that from now on allowances paid to all parties would be to support them in their representative functions. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock made that point.
	If motion 3 is passed, we shall be in a position where a party with elected Members has a choice. Those Members can take up their seats, claim Short money but accept the limitation that those payments must be limited to support for parliamentary activities, or they can decline to take up their seats and obtain money from the new allowance to support all representative activities. It seems that a difference in the type of activity that would qualify for funding is inherent in the difference in the language that is used to describe Short money and that used to set out the terms of the motion.
	My quarrel with the Government's supporters, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, concerns the rights and duties of a Member of Parliament. I accept completely my right hon. and learned Friend's assertion that the privilege of election confers certain rights on us, but those rights are accompanied by responsibilities. The very fact that rules exist in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament making payment and allowances conditional on Members taking their seats reflects the fact that to take a seat and participate is seen as the central function and duty of an elected Member in any legislature. We should not forget that until a mere five years ago that was the tradition or belief on which we acted in the House.

Peter Hain: We can probably all agree that this afternoon's debate was one of the occasions that shows the House at its best, not only speaking with passionI recognise that arguments have been made against the position that I am about to put, and I understand and respect those argumentsbut speaking about the values and integrity of the House. There is an issue to wrestle with. I understand that, and I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), among others.
	Whatever our arguments, we can agree that Sinn Fein contested and won elections to the House. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and others mentioned, Sinn Fein Members were elected on a mandate not to take their seats. They are therefore not entitled to the salaries which follow from taking the Oath, and they do not get salaries. Nevertheless, they are Members of the House and their electorate have rights. Their constituents perhaps especially those who did not vote for themhave rights, and the House has a responsibility to respect those rights.
	That is why the House has already determinedI stress thishas already determined the principle that Sinn Fein MPs should receive MPs' allowances. That decision was made in December 2001. Some right hon. and hon. Members are trying to rerun that decision, but we should respect the will of the House, as determined in 2001. I note that the shadow Leader of the Houseand it has just been repeated by the shadow Northern Ireland spokesmanis opposed in principle to that. I understand that. It is not to do with what was or was not in the IMC report. It is not to do with the level of paramilitary activity, criminality or violence. They are in principle opposed to the granting of MPs' allowances to Sinn Fein Members who have refused to take the Oath.
	That is a perfectly defensible position, although I note that when I pressed her on the matter, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was not rock solid committed to it. She was not willing to say that if a Conservative Government were elected after the next election and she were Leader of the House, she would sweep those allowances away. So she is not that committed to the principle.

Peter Hain: Even though the hon. Gentleman is such an experienced parliamentarian, I do not think that that is correct. When the House makes a decision, that stays in force until the House changes that decision, in respect of a number of issues. I shall return to the point.
	On 10 March 2005 the House resolved to suspend the allowancesI moved the motionfollowing a report by the Independent Monitoring Commission on IRA culpability in the Northern bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney. But that was a suspension, not a rejection, of allowances for Sinn Fein. In the two motions today I am asking the House to acknowledge that since then, and perhaps even encouraged a little by that suspension, the situation has changed dramatically for the bettermuch better even than for the three years during which Sinn Fein Members were in receipt of House allowances. The House might want to bear that in mind.
	Whatever views there may be of Sinn Fein and the IRA, the context of this debate is another report of the IMC. In its eighth report published last week, the IMC advised that the financial measures taken against Sinn Fein were no longer justified. The IMC reached its view after a detailed and considered review of all the available information, including intelligence information. The report states clearly that the Provisional IRA
	uniquely among paramilitary organisations, has taken the strategic decision to eschew terrorism and pursue a political path,
	and it concludes that
	there are a number of signs that the organisation is moving in the way it indicated in its statement of 28 July 2005.
	On that basis, the report clearly and unambiguously recommends that the financial measures against Sinn Fein should be discontinued:
	We do not believe that financial measures against Sinn Fein of the kind referred to in our Fourth Report should continue.
	I strongly believe that such a clear recommendation from the IMC deserves an equally clear response from this House, and the Government's tabling of the motions before the House this evening is such a response. The restoration of allowances and the motion to grant financial assistance for representative business is intended further to encourage the republican movement along the path of democratic politics.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has reaffirmed his party's opposition to the principle of granting allowances to hon. Members who have not taken the Oath. Interestingly, on BBC Ulster this morning, he said that the Oath of loyalty to the Queen should be re-examined if it would mean Sinn Fein MPs taking their seats in the House of Commons. That is an interesting proposition, although I note that he has not advocated it this evening.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has raised an important questionthe definition of representativethat goes to the heart of the matter. The proposal has been modelled on the Short money model. Parliamentary business is not defined in the Short money resolution, too, but the guidance to the auditor on Short money makes it clear that Short money cannot be used for political campaigning and similar partisan activities, political fundraising, membership campaigns and personal or private business. That guidance would apply to representative pursuits by Sinn Fein Members.
	Motion 3 on the Order Paper makes it clear that the money must go on expenses exclusively incurred by the support of
	spokesmen in relation to the party's representative business.
	Hon. Members should note that the Short money resolution passed in 1999 does not define parliamentary business any more than this motion defines representative business. Both phrases must be interpreted by the accounting officer and the auditor, and the rules are strict.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has asked whether the House's accounting officer can issue guidance. As I have said, the accounting officer provides a note for the auditor giving some guidance on Short money. If motion 3 is passed, the issue would be a matter for the accounting officer, who may want to consider whether and how to issue guidance, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be happy to discuss that matter with him. It is also possible that the Members Estimate Committee or the House of Commons Commission would want to look at the guidance, too. The situation must be policed carefully and the rules must be rigorously enforced. It is not a question of simply handing over 85,000, because, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has said, a properly audited application is required.

Peter Hain: That matter is for the Leader of the House. I not sure whether parliamentary time will be required, but if it is, representations can be made to the Leader of the House. However, the Members Estimate Committee and the House of Commons Commissions can make their own decisions and report them to the House.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has suggested that I might have questioned his commitment to peace, but I have never done so. In the nine months in which I have been in this job, we have worked together to achieve peace, and I would not challenge his absolute commitment to peace in Northern Ireland. We have had an honest debate about how to bolt down peace and make sure that it becomes permanent.
	The Government deserve some credit for the enormous transformation in Northern Ireland. I am not in any way suggesting that if motion 3 were not passed and the 84,000 were not granted to Sinn Fein, it would go back to terrorism or violence. I have never suggested thatnor, contrary to criticisms made during the debate, has the Leader of the House. It would be absurd to do so. The question is how we can, through today's decision, encourage the republican movement and others to take the process forwards, not backwards.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked several important questions. I welcome his support for motion 4 on ending the suspension of allowances to Sinn Fein Members. He is troubled by motion 3, and I understand that. He said that its only direct reference to Short money resolution, and therefore implicitly to the scope of that resolution, is in paragraph (2), but that in fact deals with the method of calculation. Technically speaking, he is right. However, it is clear from the way in which the motion is drafted, and from today's debate, that if it is passed the intention of the House will be that the Short money model is applied as closely as possible; although of course it is not Short money as such. I am sure that we can expect the House to implement it in that way.
	It is important to recognise that all Opposition Front Benchers travel throughout the country making speeches as part of their parliamentary functions. Part of Sinn Fein's representative functions in future could be making speeches that arise from their position as Members of Parliament. I did not think that it would be sensible for the Commons to get into the question whether a Short money-funded researcher was only drafting speeches delivered in this House or was also helping to draft speeches delivered as part of an MP's or Front-Bench spokesman's responsibilities outside the House. Precisely those issues arise in the motion and precisely those issues of policing will be applied by the auditor and by the House authorities.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked several questions about allegations that he has made. I will look at Hansard before I consider my response.

Ann Clwyd: I will indeed. My right hon. Friend is a Member for a constituency that has returned a Labour MP for 100 yearsalong with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), whose constituency has also returned a Labour Member for 100 years. I congratulate all those constituencies on having the foresight to continue to do so.
	As Labour's first manifesto put it,
	The House of Commons is supposed to be the people's House, and yet the people are not there. Landlords, employers, lawyers, brewers and financiers are there in force. Why not Labour?
	It was a dozen years before universal male suffrage would be granted, and more than 20 before women were treated equally with men. Those Labour pioneers came to the House of Commons with a purpose. Although vastly outnumbered in our first Parliament they achieved a great deal, from reversing the Taff Vale judgment to strengthening the legal rights of trade unions in the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Labour was also successful that year in securing the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906. Confronting those two bread-and-butter issuesschool meals and compensation for industrial injuryhas made a real difference to all our constituents: a sign of things to come.
	Another landmark achievement of the first parliamentary Labour party was the 1908 Right to Work Bill. Unemployment brought poverty and destitution, which helped to explain why, according to the Government's own admission, coroners blamed the 1906 deaths of 49 Londoners on starvation. The Bill sought to make local authorities responsible for finding work for the unemployed and for providing maintenance if no work could be found. It entailed both a deliberate national effort to tackle the trade cycle and the introduction into law of the revolutionary principle that work was a right. The Bill did not become law, but Labour's assertion of the importance of full employment and the dignity of work has been a central part of Labour's politics ever since.
	The first chair of the parliamentary Labour party was James Keir Hardie. Wisely, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party was also leader of the party. As the current chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I applaud and endorse that tradition. Keir Hardie led Labour for two years, and after ill health, was succeeded by Arthur Hendersona popular trade unionist and Wesleyan lay preacherwho later became Labour's first Cabinet Minister. The MPs elected in 1906 included the first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden.
	When the extension of the franchise came in 1918, Labour won the votes of many of those who now had a voice. Labour took office for the first time in 1924, and again in 1929. Then, after the long years in opposition of the 1930s, it joined the Churchill coalition in the second world war, before the 1945 election[Hon. Members: Hooray!]brought Labour's great landslide. The 1945 Government became one of the most reforming in British history[Hon. Members: Hear, hear]with the national health service, national insurance, freedom for India, housing, the nationalisation of industry and the foundations of the welfare state.
	Sadly, the 1945 Government fell victim to the pressures that every reforming Governments now face. The natural desires to change further, reform more and become more radical are pressed against the need to balance resources, proceed gradually and manage change. These pressuresthe language of priorities to take a famous phrasehave been at the root of Labour's failings as much as our reforming instincts have been at the heart of our successes. Despite our achievements in the 20th century, Labour was in power for only 23 years. The 21st century is getting better, and I am hopeful that we will beat our previous record by 2023.
	It is right that we mark our successes, but we should also think of all the times when we were not in office, when we were unable to help those who needed us, and unable to support the poorest and the most disadvantaged. We should think why we were not in power more often, and how we can make sure that we are even more successful in the next 100 years than in the last 100 years.
	Some 100 years on from the founding of the parliamentary Labour party, we celebrate the achievement of those pioneers and their legacy. The Labour party that evolved into a party of government created the NHS, brought education for all and built the welfare state. It was those pioneers that built the party that more recent heroes, such as Attlee, Bevan, Bevin, Gaitskell, Foot and Castle, would join. It was these pioneers who built the party that our current parliamentarians knowthe party that introduced the minimum wage, introduced tax credits, gave more rights to workers and to unions, extended rights for parents, gave a savings account to every child and enacted the biggest hospital programme in Britain's history.
	Today we mark the Labour pioneers, all their successors who served their constituencies as Labour Members of Parliament in the last century in this Chamber, and the laws that they enacted. They served their country well.
	Just as Keir Hardie moved at the end of that first meeting in 1906, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Bridget Prentice: Sometimes one comes to an Adjournment debate when only the initiator of the debate and the Minister are in the House. I am not quite sure what has happened this evening. Furthermore, the Minister often has to reject the views expressed by the debate's initiator. I can say that, for once, that will not be the case tonight.
	I can also say that this Labour Government absolutely agree with all my right hon. Friend's complimentary and inspiring comments about the Labour party in Parliament over the past 100 years. As she said, in the 1906 election the Labour Representation Committee fielded some 50 candidates and, exactly 100 years ago this Sunday, the 29 successful LRC MPs filed into Committee Room 12 to meet for the first time as the parliamentary Labour party. Their aims were straightforward. As Labour's manifesto for 1906 said:
	This election is to decide whether or not Labour is to be fairly represented in Parliament.
	They were all men at that time; women had not been granted the right to vote. It was only because Labour campaigned for that right that women eventually achieved it. It is fitting that the Adjournment debate was introduced tonight by a woman and that it is now being replied to by one. That is what this partyour party, whether in Parliament or outsidehas always and, I hope, will always be about: helping people to realise their potential regardless of their background. When those men met 100 years ago this weekend, they realised that Parliament and, beyond that, forming a Government were the best way to reach those ambitions. We might not always succeed and we might sometimes try to reach beyond what we can achieve, but this partythe Labour partyon behalf of the people, will always try to enact the commitment that people give to us when they vote Labour.
	So, 1906 was a vital year for the Labour party and Parliament, but there was a good deal else going on at the time, too. For instance, the Daily Mail tried to pour scornold habits die hardon women campaigning for the vote by dismissively dubbing them, for the first time, as suffragettes. The result of Labour pressure in Parliament from 1906 meant that we saw the introduction of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 to improve conditions at sea, the Trade Disputes Act 1906 to legalise peaceful picketing and the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, which meant that 6 million workers became entitled, for the first time, to compensation for accidents and industrial diseases.
	Those measures were of real and practical help to people. They helped people, their families and their communities to achieve their full potential. They sought to enact what Labour at its best has always sought to enact: social justice and economic success hand in hand. The measures expressed in practice our valuesLabour valuesbecause our values remain unchanged: fairness, justice, tolerance, decency and compassion. Those values were what Labour stood for 100 years ago in the House and they are the values that Labour stands for in the House today.
	The way in which we apply those values must reflect the changing nature of people's lives. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is rightly fond of saying,
	traditional values in a modern setting.
	That is exactly what the Labour party in Parliament encapsulates, just as those 29 founders did, for their time, 100 years ago. They had the new century spread out in front of them; so do we now. Just as their agenda and programme for change was of a large scale, so, too, is ours.
	Labour in Parliament has done much in 100 years. We have created the national health service, provided education for all and built a welfare state, but we all know that we have a great deal more to do. Reforming and improving key institutions and key achievements is a constant task. Maintaining our vigilance and security is a constant task. Securing a strong economy and a good society is a constant task, whether in 2006 or 1906. We know now, as our forebears knew then, that Parliament is the best vehicle to achieve change and to use power for progressive ends. Keir Hardie, the first chair of the PLP, might well have been baffled by some of the means by which we try to achieve change, such as television and the internet, but he would have recognised both the goals that we are seeking to secure and, perhaps most of all, what we are doing this for.
	Let me return, as my right hon. Friend did, to the 1906 Labour manifesto. When its authors said:
	The House of Commons is supposed to be the people's House,
	they were absolutely right. They said that
	the people are not there,
	and clearly thought that it was Labour's job to see that they were. That job then is our job nowin 1906 and 2006. There were the same aims and the same values Labour valuesthen and now. Making sure that this is the people's House was a job that the parliamentary Labour party was proud to take on in 1906, and it is a job that this parliamentary Labour party is proud to continue in 2006. Let me commend the 21st century as being Labour's century.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.